Allowed

Laxman Tulsiram Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2006WP/6019/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the Collector's order dated 1.11.2000 regarding attachment of petitioners' provident fund dues. The court held the order was beyond the Collector's jurisdiction as attachment powers under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 vest with the State Government.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Collector dated 1.11.2000 is quashed as it is without authority of law and jurisdiction. Rule made absolute.

Laxman Tulsiram Pawar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 6019 OF 2005

¶5

 Shri. Laxman Tulsiram Pawar
 and anr. ... Petitioners

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents

¶8

 Mr. P.N. Joshi for Petitioner.

¶9

 Mrs. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for R. Nos. 1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 13, 2006
 P.C.

¶11

 . Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶12

 . It is the case of the Petitioners that their

¶13

 provident fund dues are not being released pursuant
 to the order of the Collector dated 1.11.2000. We

¶14

 may at the outset point out that the Maharashtra
 Protection Of Interest Of The Depositors In Various
 Financial Institutions Act, 1999 has been held to
 be unconstitutional by this court. The matter is

¶15

 now pending before the Apex Court. Earlier, the
 Nashik Zilla Grahak Panchayat had filed a petition
 before this court which amongst others included the

¶16

¶17

 Petitioners being W.P. No. 3554 of 2000 which was
 disposed of by order dated 23.10.2001. The learned
 Bench noted the provisions of the Act and disposed
 of the Petition by directing the State Government
 to proceed further in accordance with the Act and
 to take all steps necessary for due and effective
 implementation of the Act. The State Government in
 respect of several immovable properties amongst
 others of the Petitioners, pursuant to the power
 conferred upon them under Section 5 of the Act has
 attached those immovable properties. There is no
 order of attachment of Provident Fund Dues under
 Section 4 of the Act.

¶18

 . There is a finding of fact recorded by the
 designated court also that the provident fund dues
 have not been attached.

¶19

 . In that context question arises, whether the
 Collector who is the competent authority only in
 respect of the properties which are attached under
 Section 4 of the Act could have issued any
 directions in so far as Provident Fund of the
 Petitioners are concerned. The provisions of the

¶20

¶21

 Section 4 are clear. The power is conferred on the
 State Government. The State Government till date
 has taken no steps and consequently the order
 passed by the Collector dated 1.11.2000 is clearly
 without authority of law and without jurisdiction
 and consequently petition will have to be allowed.
 In the light of that rule made absolute in terms of
 Prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c). In the
 circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
 as to costs.

¶22

(F.I. REBELLO,J.)

¶23

(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)

Laxman Tulsiram Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Tulsiram Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.S. Pardhye and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Anandrao Sonawane Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sadhu Bhikoba Pandharkar Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Sadhu Bhikoba Pandharkar Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Vijay D.More and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.